tv Capital News Today CSPAN April 11, 2013 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
technological change to state and nonstate actors is an increasing challenge to america's military. as the strategic environment facing the defense department as it enters the third year of flat or declining budgets. beyoncé erasers and stream of the two significant and i'm going while taking in the military. military modern nation refers rupture caused another addicts and measures. it's also given us an opportunity to reform defense institutions to reflect to a first century reality. the process began of leadership secretary gave you can't hold or curtailed more than 30 modernization programs across the defense enterprise. efforts reduce the top line by
$70 billion over a five-year period as detailed in the department's fy 2012 is planned. the realignment continued undersecretary cannot have who excludes with the data to have a event as late 2013 budget planned to reduce the department's top line by 487 billion over the course of a decade. the president's request for 526.6 the knowledge of the defense base budget fy 2014 continues to implement a different strategic items and hit his department suffers that institutional reform. most critically and it seems the quality of the volunteer force and the care we provide a neighbors and families, which again is not underpinned everything we do in this
organization. allow me to address the profound budget problems facing the department in fiscal year 2013 and beyond as a result of sequester. these challenges have significantly disrupt it the current fiscal year and complicated efforts to plan for the future of the congress and department of defense have a responsibility, not an application to work together to find the answers because we have a shared response ability as the chairman and ranking member have noted to protect national security. dod will need the help of this committee and congress did manage to this uncertainty. the fy 2013 dav per region fell enacted last month addressed many urgent problem by allocating funding are closely
the president's budget request, given the department 32 circuit programs and allow us to proceed important military construction projects. nonetheless, the bill that the heads of sequester as much as $41 billion over the next six months. found from sequester i made a decision to shift the impact from those in harms way. i fall heavily on the utes operations company and some modernization account to train and equip those in the future. furthermore, the military as his higher operating chemicals and higher transportation costs on the budget request is formulated within a year ago. as a result, the department is now facing shortfalls in operation and maintenance account for fy 2013 about these
$22 billion for active forces in response the department has reduced travel, cut back sharply on facilities maintenance, and post raises a any other lower priority activities. however we have do more. harsh abrupt and steep across-the-board reduction will require we continue to consider further and civilian personnel in the months ahead. cuts fall heavily richer as the readiness of a forest and i know we will address this in particular. as the service chiefs have said, we are consuming readiness. meanwhile, investment account or not spare damages retake cuts
across the areas of this budget. we need the strong partnership to help us address the shortfalls. the sequester related provisions of the act of 2011 are not changed, fy 2014 programs will be subject to deeply reduce cat, which further cut dvd funding by $52 billion if there's no action by the congress and the president, $500 billion in reductions to defend pending would be required over the next nine years to the presidents budget proposed some $150 billion defense saving over the next decade. these kind of like sequester our backloaded, occurring beyond 2018 from which gives the department wisely and
responsibly by the strategic items. the 526.6 william dollars fy 2014 request continues to balance the demands that were enough in 10, modernizing in keeping with the president strategic items sustaining the quality of the all volunteer force. today's budget contains a placeholder request for operations at the fy 2013 level is $80.5 billion. this does not include a formal request because afghanistan force level would delay to provide commanders enough time to assess requirements. we will soon be submitting an alignment with the spending
level love account level detail. the following are major component of the fy $214,526.6 billion base budget request. military pay and benefits including tri-care and retirement costs $170.2 billion represents 32% of the total base budget. operating costs including 27.3 billion were civilian pay. total 180.1 billion representing 30% of the total budget. acquisitions and other investment, procurement, test and evaluation of new facilities represent 33% budget of $176.3 billion. the budget presented today at the most basic level of a series of shows is to reinforce the
complimentary goldfield road making money so defense resources this budget continues the last several years to target growing cause and support, acquisition and pay benefits before trading capabilities and force structure. in order to maintain balance in readiness, the department must be able to eliminate excess infrastructure has to reduce its force structure. dod has been shedding infrastructure for several years and are undertaking a review of european footprint this year. we also need to look at our domestic footprint. they're for the president's fy 14 budget requests authorization for one round of reminder closer in 2015. a ribbon for a tool that allows communities the role in decisions for the property and
provides redevelopment systems. practice and perfect. it's an imperfect process and their upfront costs. the future defense program at 2.4 billion to pay for those costs but in the long-term there are significant meaning to the previous "seinfeld" preceding $12 billion annually in those savings will continue. they are also taken other important steps to cut back with important and will institute a study of military treatment facilities, including hospitals and clinics currently underutilized. and beyond will have a plan in place to suggest how to reduce the utilization of providing high-quality medical care for all of our forces and their families. this restructuring coupled with a sub 10 round and other changes
will plan on a cutting civilian workforce will comply with congressional direction. we are continuing our successful efforts to hold that military health costs at the department proposed and if it changes are projected path are about 41st lawyer madness caused an fy 2012. that's a significant turnaround compared to health care trends over the past decade. another initiative is to improve the financial management and achieve auditable financials even. i strongly support this initiative and will do everything i can to fill the can into the promises it made to the congress and the american text here. these and many changes lead to total saving of $34 billion in fy 2014 to 2018, including five by 5 billion in fy 2014.
however, we are concerned these resources be eroded by sequester. as for your force to make an efficient choices and drive up us. today for example were forced to engage in shorter in length the russian contract unit that will increase the cost of a phone. and this budget, the department has achieved 8.2 billion in savings from weapons program termination was yorkshire paper example, purpose and acquisition strategy for the army's ground combat vehicle, the gcc, the department will save 2 billion relevant costs. the department used evolutionary approaches to develop new capabilities instead of relying on the type and subtype allergy. the potential impact on local communities to the reduction of defense procurement, the department is requesting additional $369 in support of
the defense industry adjustment program. the department continues to take after take the contract terms and reduce risk largest acquisition program, the f-35 joint strike fighter. the fy 2014 request includes a .4 billion for the program. the cost of military pay and benefits are another significant driver that must be addressed in the current fiscal environment. the department is emitting a new package of military compensation proposals that take into consideration congressional concerns with this in 2013. he saved about 1.4 billion a total of 12.82018 billion. this package includes a minus sign of the growth of military pay by implementing a 1% pay raise for service members and
2014. the department is seeking additional changes to detroit care program in fy 2014 to bring the beneficiary cost share close our two levels envisioned when the program is implemented, particularly working age retirees. today, military retirees contribute less than 11% of their total health care costs compared to an average of 27% in tri-care is fully implemented in 1996. survivors of military members who died on active duty or medically retired members would be excluded from all tri-care increases. even after those changes and sees how much i care will remain still a substantial benefit. these adjustments to pay benefits were among the most carefully considered of difficult choices in this
budget. they are made with the strong support of the joint chiefs of staff and senior enlisted leadership in recognition and righteous thing these unfit over the long-term without dramatically reducing the size or readiness of the forest, rising costs need to be brought under control. spending reductions on the scale of the current drawdown cannot be implemented or just improving the reducing overhead. causing change to capabilities, force structure and modernization programs will also be required. strategic timing january 2012 set the priorities and parameters than foreign ministry is in the fy 2014 budget submission further implement and defense program alignment to the strategic items. the new strategy called first muller in the air force. faster we propose an hundred thousand between fy 2012 and fy
2017. most reductions occur in the crown forest and are consistent with the decision not to size you ascribe versus to accomplish prolonged stability operations for maintaining adequate capability should such a dvds be required. at the end of fy 2014, will complete almost two thirds of the drawdown of ground forces and the drawdown should be fully complete the fy 2017 to the increased emphasis on the asia-pacific and middle east represents another guided. this budget continues to put a premium on rapidly deployable cells staining forces such as submarine, long-range bombers and carrier strike groups to project power over a creepy sense and carry out a variety of missions. as part of the rebalanced asia-pacific, the department
succeeded marine corps presence in the region, including deployments of marine units to australia. we develop honestly strategic very maintaining mutational bomber present among other capabilities. the prevost asia's most capable forces, including an f-22 squadrons acadian air force base in japan. the navy has supplied a federal combat shipped to singapore and is increasing and more by distributing business in the western states. this new strategy not only recognized as the changing character of the conflicts the u.s. must prevail but also leverages you can't do it for the operation insistent bass, savers face, special operations, global mobility, missile defense and other capabilities. by making trade off some lower priority areas, the fy 2014
budget protects her increases investments in these critical capabilities. the high quality of our volunteer force continues to be the foundation of our strain in the fy 2014 budget request includes military know as well as 49.4 for military medical care. together these make up roughly one third of our peace touch it. this budget takes to ensure troops receive training and equipment for military readiness and world-class support programs and their families have earned. however, as in other areas of the budget on a steep and abrupt cut the time these programs, even with flat and declining defense budgets committee seeks to press ahead with the transition and counterinsurgency focus for his to a force agile of operating across a full range
of operations across the globe. to say this budget off and initiatives that seek to return the full spectrum training and preparation for missions beyond current operations in afghanistan. the department continues her to understand and quantify readiness at committees as they seek to maximize preparedness for railroad -- and. we do not yet know the cost of fixing readiness following six months of sequester cut to training in this fiscal year. therefore costs are not included in the fy 2014 budget. the department's budget submission makes clear people are central to everything we do also questor cuts would counter many initiatives come especially for civilian workforce, and initiatives remain important statement that the intent this budget. the department continues to support key programs in fy 2014
support service members and families come this in a non-initiatives in the transition assistance and veteran employment insurance. behavioral health, family readiness and assault prevention and response. the fy 2014 budget is a reflection of deities as staffers do not send, ways and means during a period of intense fiscal uncertainty. it is a balanced plan that would address the department structural cause an internal budget imbalance is still implementing the defense strategic items and keeping faith with men and women in uniform and their families. it is obvious significant changes to the department staff in any would require changes to this budget plan. the department must plan for an introduction to the defense budget that might result from congress and mistreated agreed on a deficit reduction plan.
it must be prepared in the event sequestered little cut persist another year or over the. as a result, i directed a strategic choice of management review in order to assess the potential impact of further reductions to the level full text cluster. the purpose of this review is to reassess the basic assumption that drive investment or structure decisions. the review identifying further institutional reforms that may be required, including reforms they should be put to it regardless of fiscal pressures. it is designed to help understand challenges, articulate risk semi for opportunity for reform and efficiencies presented by resource constraints. everything will be on the table during this review. wilson mission, planning,
business practices, force structure, personnel, acquisition modernization investment in how we operate a measure and maintain readiness. we have no choice. the review is conducted by deputy secretary carter, working with general dempsey. the service secretaries and chiefs, office of the secretary of defense print opposing combatant commanders are all serving as essential participate in this review. arraign underway now by may may 31st and results confirm the fy 2015 budget request it will be the foundation of the quadrennial defense review due to congress february next year. it is clear to me achieving significant additional readings without unacceptable risk to national security will require not just tweaking are chipping away existing structures and
this, that fashioning entirely new one that better reflect 21st century realities and that will require of congress. the fy 2014 budget that went before it departures as. in many cases honest reforms to personnel and benefits of diverse director simpers yorkshire and restructure acquisition programs that you political resistance are not implemented. awareness fiscal environment with the realities that will force us to more fully confront these tough painful choice is in the reforms we need. to put this department on a path to sustain our military strength for the 21st century. in order to do that with a flexibility time and budget certainty. the city to fund military capabilities necessary to the complex security threat of the 21st century.
i believe the budget does that the partnership of congress from the defense department will operate affordably come efficiently and effectively. however, multiple reviews and analyses show major cut chemist bushido sums content of sequestration would require germanic reductions in corn military capabilities for the scope of activities around the world. is the executive government, with a shared response delay to ensure we protect our national security and america's strategic interests. doing so requires to make every decision on the second during national interest and every policy is worthy of the services it provides other members and their families. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> chairman mckeon,
recommenders, i welcome this opportunity to let a few of states armed forces and comment on the budget proposal for fist to your 2014. obviously this hearing comes at a time of extraordinary certainty as resources decline, risks to national security rise. in this context i offer perspective on how we work together to sustain a balance and careless chart for if one is certain. men and women in uniform at unfasten their courage and devotion to duty. i saw it recently and there i met in an when i had the honor of reenlisting 10 of them this past may at bogra merrifield. our forces are simultaneously fading, transitioning and redeploying. the afghan military will soon take operational lead for security across the country as they gain confidence from a set of afghan people.
the coalition were made in support as we transition to a sustainable present beyond 2014. at every point along the way, we must make sure first up was match the mission. our joy for us to envision my mouth. zero. we are deterring aggression and assuring allies in the face of provocation by both north korea and iran, working with your agent partners to defend against cyberattack. we are working to defeat al qaeda and rebalancing the asia-pacific and adapt and force posture to renew normal combustible violent in north africa and the middle east. for also working to keep serious complex conflict from destabilizing the region ever ready with options of military force is called for and if military force can be used effectively to secure interest without making the situation worse. we must be ready for another 13
dangerous future. the budget is purpose built to keep our nation and from coercion. it aims to restore versatility to a more affordable joint force in support of our strategy. however, let me be clear what it does not do. this budget does not reflect full sequestration. it doesn't pose less reduction and gives us more time. however, are to be about the timeframe will be for this or any other future budget. versus budget includes funds to restore last readiness. we don't yet know the full impact or cost to recover from the ready a short posix and the fear. as expected, we've curtailed or canceled trading or many units across the services for those not preparing to deploy an enough remix earrings this marks answer to restore readiness and keep it. recovery costs compete now at the cost of building the joint force in the future.
this budget does however invest in priorities. he keeps the force and alan. it supports up to put operations and oppose funding such a cipher in funds conventional and nuclear capabilities that are so critical on a proven essential to our defense. delivers manpower costs, reduces excess infrastructure makes health care must singable. most importantly protects investment in your damage in people and treats being the best light, best trained and equipped for his is nonnegotiable imperative. never as our nation disdain such a lengthy were solely through the service of an all volunteer force. they must honor commitments to them and their families. for many veteran, returning home as a front-line scene and seemed.
the mets continue to invest in world-class treatments for mental health issues and combat dress. we also have a shared possibility to address the urgent issues to the site with the same devotion which don't check to soldiers come the others on the airman and marine combat. risks inherent to military service is not in good assault. salt betrays trust on which our profession is rounded. we will pursue every option to drive this crime from our ranks. this is a defining moment for our military. our warriors spoke to in his son don said, that the means to prepare to win are becoming uncertain. we have an opportunity, an obligation at this and any future budget to restore confidence. we have within us to stay strong as a global leader and reliable partner. the joint force is looking to us to meet through this period of
historical fiscal correction, but we can't do it alone as i've said before and as the secretary said renamed rogers 13 t., time and flexibility to dismiss predictable funding stream. the time to evaluate trade-offs and force structure, modernization and readiness in the full flexibility to keep the force and balance. thank you probably tend to support men and women in uniform. i only ask you continue to support response on their nation defend as a forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. i think we won't have any vote on the floor before 1:00. it's my intention to give him any questions they can and take up brief break around noon. among the critical last exit the
transition in afghanistan the bilateral security agreement with the government of afghanistan, i'm concerned with the progress in negotiations and failure to reach an agreement will put at risk vital national security interest in afghanistan and the region. bakery creating a vacuum that they do not data is what way. clearly we need a willing partner press process public statements have been erratic at best. if that agreement is first and no agreement at all coming and i'm not only a supreme imperative, but we need to secure to allow nato allies time to negotiate similar agreement and send the strongest signal possible that we will not abandon a guinness stand. i know when i was there not too long ago, general dempsey and
mason. everyone in a asking when are you leaving because taliban style number leaving would need to counter the touted narrative resource confidence i saw in asking partners resulting from accelerated redeployment in ambiguity about the residual force. to that end, i strongly believe in and out in about a residual for his release of a narrow range of u.s. troop levels is a necessary prerequisite for securing. this is one of the problems they had with the rack. we didn't come up with a number sufficient that the iraqi leadership would expend political capital to do what is necessary to make an agreement possible. by sitting on the amount that, all parties at the stake in the outcome, afghanistan, neighbors,
allies in congress will be reluctant to expend political capital necessary to secure a good agreement. the politics become significantly more complicated as the bsa gets caught up in the presidential election and campaign for the midterm congressional elections. karzai will only become more challenging to deal with at this term comes to an end. sounds and speculation be self filling prophecy as we saw in iraq, repeating an outcome is acceptable given the sacrifices we've made. he stated this week pinning down post y 14 troop levels is not a model urges me. why do you believe we can cure bilateral security agreement in a timely manner without the decision on residual force levels? >> thanks, chairman. first let me align myself with
your assessment that it is confident that the afghan people in a subset of that is confident that the security forces they really are at the center of gravity now, that which will allow this mission to succeed ended door. second that, let me align myself with your suggestion that bilateral security agreement should be achieved as soon as possible. the reason i said it wasn't important to nail down the exact number is brd have a nato mission in which we at delete nation clearly, the part of the nato mission and nato has cleared the range of trainers, advisers will be between eight and 12,000 msi not to be a reasonable target towards which to aim. so i think we can move ahead with the bilateral agreement on that basis because that it shouldn't form the basis to
retain and what authorities we made me. there's also physics involved. were going to be 34,000 middle of february and to get from 34,000 to eight to 12,000 between then and the end of 2014, we can do the math. tactically, i don't need the exact number because i have a range available to me and i know what it takes to richer page from 34 k. to something between eight and 12. >> i know when i spoke to general allen and general dunford, they both talked about the number of dirt and dust and 600 then an additional 6000 nato troops, which would get 20,000, which would allow advisers to the battalion level is the way they had it laid out.
so even if we could come out with that range that they could feel comfortable with in the negotiation, i think that would be helpful. general in february he testified before the committee and i'm going to quote, what do you want your military to do? if you want to do what it's doing today, we can't issue another dollar -- and adding, out of our budget. a year ago he testified if it were mark, we got to go back to the drawing board and adjust our strategy and not with the secretary asked for a couple weeks ago company, to adjust his strategy. what an aim to you today is the strategy they would adjust to but in my do not meet the needs of the nation in 2020 because the world is not getting any worse table.
nevertheless in the budget requests come in the has proposed taking additional 120 to 150 billion from the military depending how you measure the cut. he offers no proposal to erect a fight at 3 billion shortfall in the school year 13. if the dod conduct an analysis that offers a strategic rough enough for the skype? who propose another ended on you at the white house asked for this analysis? a that of your previous testimony, what mission and what changes to last year's strategy will you endorse. >> sera, the reality of budget and you know this is painfully if anyone is to take a year to prepare and so we've been working on the fy 14 edge it for a year. sequestration take game one
arch. the president's budget back was years beyond the five-year defense plan most of the reductions he proposes. they don't have a significant effect on this five-year defense plan but made it. i think, this is resized by secretary of defense has taken us on a path towards a strategic review because those who advocate not only the president's budget proposal, but full sequestration commode but understand with all due to the force. it doesn't affect the submission that most of the skype are backloaded. explainer seven at 514. that's the reason i can still say with confidence what i said before. >> misters that.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to throw down the budget question because frequently in this committee act if you cut 1 penny from defense, it's unsustainable, unworkable and nationalist purity falls apart and it's obviously ridiculous anywhere in government. if there's basis to cut, it depends where you are cutting them what you're doing and the problem we have right now is sequestration. across the board coming deep, done right in the middle of the fiscal year. so the problems you describe in your testimony are being caused by sequestration and by that map change you have to make to existing budgets. again, all that decides if they want to hope you come in the best thing we can do is step sequestration estimates possible because it is the classic gift that keeps on giving. 2014, 2015, 2016. but can it keep happening unless
we stop it. when you look outcome of the cuts in the president's budget beyond that are 2017 and beyond of roughly $118 depending how you calculate it. the other problem we have a place as he can cut in the defense budget -- effect or national security. the congress can instantly stops you from doing and i want to explore two of those. disclosure in personnel costs on the tri-care if secretary haeckel mentioned when tri-care was in place, their average number 327% and is now down to 11. plenty of room in the next 10 years in both of those areas to find savings. my question if we find saving, isn't it true that doesn't affect the plan? general dempsey, you could have seen the peak of his left money,
tell us what list you want to do. here's the strategy, but they are dramatic improvement in a beacon, and an acquisition programs as a result of initiatives. i think took our budget and say not 1 penny can come our defense wrong from a matter of efficient the fact we have a deficit exceeding sli then a massive deficit in structure in this country that the implications for taxes and on and on, clearly money can be cut over the course of the next 10 years that won't impact national security in the hope our budget pictures. talk a little bit about brac and tri-care fees, remains the need with a dissonant act national security. whichever one of the want to take a stab at it. >> thank you, congressman.
respond and then mass general temps d. you ask mr. hale. he may want to respond is well. let me address your larger question in the context of the question. if in fact we're facing the reality we are facing, then we're going to have a plan, it just, review and take a pretty hard look at everything. the chairman's comments in his testimony, matching the least versus the commission is a particularly important comment because we can't put our military analyst to support our military in a position where they are underresourced and there's an expectation by the people of this country that they
are secure and we are guaranteeing security. as the chairman and mr. smith noted in your comment, it is biased to some ability of a government, a security of the nation. it is going to require some tough choices across the board and i generally had some of this choice is in my testimony. brac area we have to look at because there's not one answer to this. if every component of our budget, including tri-care, compensation, benefits. i don't have to engage this body, and this congress on the issue of socialist purity. our current entitlements distance. i doubt if this many people who don't unders and unless we do
some thing, actuarially it is not sustainable. same as in the military. they have to manage this, that we have to project as well as we can with our strategic priorities and national interests. how are we going to do this? the reality of sequestration is not in theory. if god. the congress passed, the president signed the budget act. >> is fun to talk the budget, i'd be remiss service us 12 to 14 years to cut taxes and nearly $7 trillion ran into the face of the baby boom generation retiring in two wars. some revenues part of this discussion as well, which i do with out about before, but i want to put that off for the record. but can you they are, can money
be cut over the course of the next 10 years will not negatively impact their ability to protect national security? >> my answer is it's going to be cut. >> when you make those kind, you're mostly we have a strategy, but that's ridiculous. clearly you cut and it does not jeopardize national security. i'm wondering if you jump in and agree. >> all respond and ask general dempsey. as he said in your opening comment, i don't know when this in the can't find an efficient the summer. i don't think the defense department is any different. back to an important point general dempsey made to me you won't do it as for department of defense, what are our priorities? what do the american people ask
at the defense department to do? but if this nation? those capabilities are going to be required to secure our nation. here's where you have to start. i think you can find saving teratogenic good job of finding saving, acquisition and other areas. it's possible, but we don't have any choice. >> i want to give other members the chance to ask questions, but that more or less answers that question. if you send a quick guide to be great, otherwise other members the chance to getting. is microsoft trying to figure out the 487 ileum. this process doesn't start from a single platform frankly. secondly, even with sequestration can this be the deepest cut the military has a very, that is the steepest. the answer is fully taken into context of s. now.
we do need time to figure out what the cuts would do before their imposed. >> make no mistake, that we done is ridiculous. if you put together a 10 year plan, you can find saving any time an admiral job. i got back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think we can find savings across government. the point is taken 50% of the saving when they only account for 18% of the saving. if i think we need to be more rational and the whole approach. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, in your beach to tweet, talking about strategic choices and management review company said the goal is not to say i'm her except the deep cut
such as those imposed by sequester will endure. and the next paragraph company said this exercise is also matching mission with resources, which we've had a long-standing discussion on this committee about what comes first. do you have a dollar amount and you figure out which you can do with it, or do you figure out it takes to defend the country and talk about what resources are required to do that mission? as you know, there's a widespread view group running the pentagon to cut defense. some of the people concerned about that are pointing to the fact that cost assessment and program evaluation folks are playing a key role in the strategic review. the green eye shade people. so i guess at a broader level,
it seems to me what anyone else in the government, the secretary of defense has got to be the one that takes into type it up publicly, but also within the administration. i guess i'd be interested in how you see your role. is it to manage the decline or is it to be explicit about the dangers in the world and what it takes in the more political part of the government, congress and the president have to accept consequent is that the decision. [inaudible] >> congressman, thank you. i've been in this job six weeks. the cuts were talking about occurred long before i got here, so i don't think i know what to do with the decisions to cut defense spending.
as to my responsibilities come to you listed accurately some and that is i presided over the one in situation in this country church with only one mission in the security of the country. i have no other child. a report to the commander-in-chief, president of the united states. i work with the congress as an agent of the executive. part of my job is to manage, to see the department of defense is managed efficiently, effectively within a loss of the congress passes and direct as the gives us. yes also my role is to be in a cave where men and women in uniform and the job we do and i have done that. i intend to do that and i don't think i take a backseat to
anyone. look at my entire life, my career. i have not done as much as most of you in the congress here are certainly as general dempsey has done, but i've been devoting my entire life to veterans and military anything a record is pretty clear on that. i'm an advocate for this department in my face i get to the president of the united states, but they also have to be realistic, congressman in what we deal with sequestration is the love. it's not debatable for me. this is what is on the books now. this is what the congress last month, the house and senate budget resolution see past a budget resolution for 2014 that essentially is posted with the president's budget is for 2014. i have to deal with that reality
and i have to manage an egg with that reality. your last point about accepting these kinds of things. as i said, as you noted, whether i accept it or not is one thing. no, we don't want to accept it. briere appeared sitting in her testimony and interviews with sequestration in some specificity is doing and will continue to do to our capabilities and readiness and the hard choices were going to make, but i can't leave my institution into a swamp of an exciting over protesting with irony and place. they'll respond honestly and directly. the general has made it clear. i think i did.
i'm how difficult this is going to be. it's a combination of all the things he said is the way i see my job. i also say the president did not obstruct me when he asked me to do this job -- when he asked me to do this job, to go and cut the heart out of the pentagon. that was in his instruction to me, nor any implication in any way. thank you. >> thank you. ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being there for us today. there are many at the room about how the u.s. debt deficit was one of the biggest concerns with respect to national security. we're really trying to do with so many across america believe it's correct to do and not a
scooter fiscal fiscal house in order. i've been one of those people who said everybody has to put some in on the table. entitlement, defend and so many discretionary programs that some people like to cut all the time. this congress, because this super committee was not able to, but cuts, this is where we are. secretary haeckel, i don't think you're brought in to cut defense. their patent to follow the law and to us if we need to change course of action, how to do that and why we need to do that. my question to you today and am i not in the 17 years been on this committee, when i first came to congress, our defense budget was a little bit under $300 billion a year and as we
went into two wars, over a decade, our budget but elected to spending rose to about $800 billion a year. i don't enthused in a single department that can be seen that. some are getting out of the second or, coming back and i think there are cuts to be made. the secretary, over the next ideas when i look at this budget, is a transfer of of dollars going to support nuclear weapons sustainment to cover the cost of escalation of existing programs and increased requirement. as you know, i sent us a ranking or n/a support the increased oversight but apart in defense is doing with respect to cause, but i wonder why i only see them creases in the nuclear weapons
program and nothing with respect to nuclear non-proliferation programs. so that would be my first question to you. the second is about the 14 interceptors that alaska. as a note to do this, as the department of defense vista do this, what is the department commitment to ensure the interceptors are successfully operational and realistically tested before we deploy them since gdi has not been only flight test did since 2008? >> congresswoman, thank you. that may respond to the ground-based interceptors problem. when i made the amount that regarding increasing our dirty
gdi and tory to 44 and i see no, they are located in the nuclear pork really ingrained in your. i noted we did have a problem in one of the last test with the guidance system. when i was asked the question, would you put this new intercept or send? still was some uncertainty until the problem was resolved i said no. so we are testing, continued to test and certainly would not employ any new interceptors anywhere and so are completely satisfied their operational and we have complete confidence in their ability. as to the non-proliferation
budget, as you know, dod does not have responsible by many non-proliferation programs. our responsibility is funding and maintaining and securing the nuclear stock pio and we will continue to do that. the non-proliferation programs for workers did not specifically, also energy and may participate in the process, but defending dozens, from dod. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> congresswoman, i don't want to miss the opportunity to point out on iraq and afghanistan are winding down his cease day the world we are inheriting here, it is far less stable than the one that existed when you enter the congress of the night stays. i would ask you not to make any
direct correlation between the end of the conflict in afghanistan and where you think our budget shouldn't do. >> and also clarify the record so people don't think we've had a budget of over $800 billion a year for the last 10 years, we had one budget over $700 billion. mr. jones. >> mr. chairman, good to see you again. general dempsey. mr. secretary, you've are saved in your comments with the american people want. what they want to say smaller efficient foreign policy. i don't think we've had a foreign policy that made a lot of sense truthfully going back to george bush. not being critical of the president, the general dempsey, high-tech to the inspector general of reconstruction. i spoke to stuart bowen and we continue to spend money. today i had general jay garner
in my office for an hour and a half. he is at the firm belief in the next year to three years there will be a civil war in iraq and i hope mr. secretary, do you have general dempsey for goodness sakes continue to police and keep all these faces overseas open. we are in a financial collapse. also an army corporal from my district has lost a leg, three fingers and brain injury. he's got a wife and four children. he lives in north carolina. somebody has got to wake up this country. yes we've got to have a strong military. we've got to have a strong defense, but they deserve better than what they get from it is tradition in congress that wants
to send them around the world can change the culture of countries that could care less about freedom. if they are a threat to us, i will vote every time to make sure we defend the american people, but i hope, mr. secretary, you will be a leader with this administration and say carefully, let make sure it's justified because we failed in iraq was never justified. ..
again weeks in to change the way that we get involved in this foreign wars with no end to it. so, if you want to comment on that -- you don't have to but if you want to, i appreciate it. >> congressman, thank you. good to see you again. you and i have had over the years many conversations about this issue. and i am grateful you over many years in difficult situations, have spoken up and made clear your thoughts on what you just talked about and other issues. i would respond this way very briefly. if you recall the last sentence
of my testimony, the last sentence of my testimony was: any decision we make should always be worthy of the service and sacrifices of our men and women and their families. i believe that. and i will do that as secretary of defense. the day i think that is not being done, i will do everything i can to make sure it is done, but if that day would ever come, i would have to resign. because it is the essence of who we are, first of all, as americans. to your bigger point, i think we are all in this country, certainly those responsible for foreign policy, and our national security, and all the connects dynamics that flow into that, our economics, and everything,
energy -- are now defining, as they analyze what we went through the last 12 years -- i'm not here to debate that. but it is important we review. what we did, why, where we are, and we have some new opportunities their restructure take that review, and hopefully put america maybe on a path here where we can do more, certainly, with allies. and it's central to everything we do. and last point i'll make is the comment i made in my testimony -- and general dempsey noted it -- it isn't all bad sometimes to have these situations when each of us in our personal lives or government lives are confronted with the uncontrollables coming down on
us because it forces us to take inventory and stock. what are we doing, why, how are we doing it? that essentially what is going on. so there is an opportunity here. i wish it would come in a different way, but it is what it is. so, we've got to be smart. how we use this opportunity, to restructure and rethink and foreign policy guides everything because it is our national interest, and i know that's not the purview of this committee, but you're not disconnected from it. nor are we, by the way. i serve on the president's national security team, and there's no discussion that general dempsey has or i have with the president or secretary of state that does not include all of these parts. so, i understand what you're saying, congressman, and i appreciate your comments. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks thanks to each of you for service to our country,
secretary hagel, i have three questions. with possible delays in the f-35 procurement, do you believe the navy and the air force have budgeted sufficient funds to maintain the necessary strike fighter inventory meet national military strategy requirements? >> yes, i do. with regard to the national guard, in your opinion, given the current budget atmosphere in, can we tone to resource and equip the national guard reserve component as an operational force or do you feel like you'll have to revert back to the strategic reserve model? >> well, i would an it, i think the national guard and reserves are key components of our military force structure, and will continue to be. i think that has become quite obvious the last few years.
and without going into a long oration of this -- and marty dempsey can handle it, dehas more depth than i can -- i don't think we can have the projected force structure counting on the assets we have and adequately managing those assets, without a strong national guard and reserves. if for no other reason than the professionalization that has occurred in our reserve and national guard components over the last 12 years i think has probably been historic. we now have a member of the joint chiefs of staff who sits there, who is a national guard representative. i think that tells you something. so i'm a strong supporter of our national guard and reserves. >> my third question is, two part but to the extent you can clarify if you need to.
the north korea and iran possess the capable to reach the united states with long-range missile? one in general, fought the conventional warhead or with a wmd warhead? >> i want to be careful with this answer because it might imply some intelligence here. but i don't believe that neither of those countries has that capacity right now. now, does that mean they won't have it? or they can't have it? or they're not working on it? no. and that is why this is a very dangerous situation. i would also add -- and i'll ask general dempsey for his thoughts -- this country is capable of dealing with any threat and any action by any country, including iran or north
korea. i know general dempsey -- >> i have nothing to add. >> so your answer is no to both questions. they do not possess the capable to reach the u.s. even with a conventional warhead and a wmd warhead? >> yes. but again, we have to always be mindful of uncertainty of anything, and you can't accept what you're never, ever sure of. right now i don't think we believe they have that capacity, but i've qualified that answer as i did. >> in preparation, just in case. >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. forbes. >> mer secretary, i'm going to duplicate the request of my good friend from north carolina and ask you be as succinct as possible in your answer because i only have five minutes. i believe the impact of this
administration's fiscal cuts to national security are unwise and will have long-lasting repercussions. i also believe this administration's attacks on faith, religious freedom, and religious liberty in our military, are also unwise and will have long-lasting repercussions. from the pentagon we had an order issued that you don't have a copy of but are probably familiar with -- that-under commanders can no longer even inform those under his or her command of approved programs in the chaplain's office in addition we have from the pentagon an order where a patch from the air force had to be removed and we were told from the liaison's office, it was because the legal department said you couldn't use god even if it was in a nonreligious context. we have here, of course, approval that was given by the assistant secretary of defense, to allow individuals to march in uniform in a san diego gay pride
parade which was a political parade using their uniforms, and then we have an order by the department of the navy prohibiting bibles from being used in walter reed hospital, and in addition to that -- these are just a few of the items, because i only have five minutes, and as i'm sure you're familiar, recently we had a tranning program, which we list evangelical christians and catholic in the statement category as al qaeda. i don't expect you to keep your hand on all of those but because of those we had a provision in the national defense authorization act last year, section 5.33, for the protection of rights of conscience of the chaplain. particularly it says our service people couldn't have their employs on the basis of -- couldn't have any adverse
personal action, discrimination or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, based on their religious beliefs also our chaplains, that no member of the armed forces could require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual or ceremony contrary to the conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against the chaplain on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with the requirement for the above paragraph. my question to you, mr. secretary -- this is a big issue office we get statement after statement sent to us, almost on a weekly basis, about these issues. we had 75% of the members of the house, 85% of the senate, who voted for that authorization bill with that provision in it because they thought it was necessary. that it i it was well-advised.
do you believe those rights and provisions of section 533 are necessary and well advised? >> well, first, congressman, i don't know about all those specifics of the information you presented. i will get it, and i will find out about it, and i will get back to you on it. first. second, obviously we'll comply with all the mdaa directives. protection of religious rights is pretty fundamental to this country -- >> mr. secretary, my time is running out mitchell only question do is you think that provision is a necessary provision and well advised? yes or no. >> well, it's in the mdaa. right? >> i'm asking you feel it was necessary and well adviced. >> i haven't seep it so if you can give me a sentence -- >> i'll follow up. i take -- let me just ask you
also to come back to me and let me know the status of the regulations that are supposed to be passed to ensure that's done, and i take it you were not aware of those today or that status. >> well, no. unless i had it in front of me i don't know. i'm aware of the directives and the -- >> then the final thing i would ask in the last 20 seconds i have, just can't understand why the department is issuing orders prohibiting people in the chain of command from talking about chaplains programs, supporting faith, but they're not prohibiting people in the chain of command from making antifaith statements and doing anti-faith training, and i hope you'll just take that into consideration and get back to us because this seems to be a growing problem, not one that is heading in the right curve direction. >> that should not be happening, and i can say that without seeing anything. and i will get back to you, and i'll find out about it. thank you. thank you. mr. andrews.
>> thank you, mr. secretary, general, mr. hale, thank you for your service to our country, and please convey to the men and women you represent how proud we are of them and the great job they do for our country every day. it's my understanding, mr. secretary, that because of sequestration, that nine fighter squadrons and three bomber squadron have been grounded. is that correct? >> i think nine is the accurate number, but -- >> it is. >> it is the accurate number. >> if the congress were able to reach an agreement where we could swap out these sequester cuts for some other cuts in various parts of the budget, and perhaps have some revenue in there as well, if the sequester were not in effect today would those planes be flying? >> i assume they would be. >> general, what are the consequences in terms of readiness and technical
capability of those airplanes not flying? >> well, fundamentally we're meeting near-term requirements at the expense of downstream readiness. this is march -- april. basketball season just end. you have 12 players on the team. you teach them individual skills the then run team drills and then scrimmage and then get into the season. what we're doing right now is we're not scrimmaging and we're limiting the number of collective drills and focusing on individual skills because that's where the budget situation has taken us. >> if the congress doesn't reach the kind of agreement i just talked bet and we have year two of -- or theful first full year of sequestration, what kind of other changes would you have to make in the defense posture of the country? >> well, we'll have to continue to effectively cut into our red
-- readiness, and thegrounding of wings is a good example of that. we're doing the same thing in the navy. not sailing, and some of our ships remain docked. our training of our soldiers. so it's across the board. isn't just one service. >> i notice that in the president's budget proposal that he does propose the replacement of sequestration. he also suggests that there still be $150 billion in cuts in defense, novelty the 550 or so we would have otherwise. what kinds of things would you do in the defense budget to hit the $150 billion target that is in the president's budget? >> well, first, that's why -- one of the reasons i directed the strategic priorities and
management review, to ask those kind of questions of our chiefs, and of our combatant commanders and other leaders in the defense department. what are those options? that's first. but if you look at the numbers, 550 billion over ten years versus 150 billion over ten years, i know what side i'll take on that if i'm looking for resources for our department. the other part of that is the president's 150 billion in savings through department of defense, comes mostly at the back end of that ten years. >> so time to transition -- >> that's exactly right. gives us time, as the general noted in his comments, time, flexibility, and certainly. >> i do not mean this as a rhetorical question. i mean it as a real question.
my assumption is we'll have significantly fewer troops in afghanistan on september 30 of '14 than september 30th of '13. is that right? >> yes, we're continuing to draw down. >> why is the overseas account request, 87.2 billion for the present fiscal year and 88.5 for the '14 fiscal year. if we're having the draw down why is that not reflected in the request? >> as place-holder, we have not sent the oco budget up yet. the 88 you refer to is the place-holder in the budget knowing we'll be coming back with something in that range. i don't know, jive wouldn't it be lower if the number of troops is lower? >> because we have to now bring them out in large numbers. that means equipment. we have bills of dollars of
equipment in afghanistan that we have to get out. it's vary dangerous. only two ways out other than fly everything out. that's prohibitive. we are flying things out now. you know the southern route is down through pakistan, out through karachi port. you know what is happening in pakistan. >> we do. >> up to the north, bad roads, variables, different countries. so that expense of just getting our troops out on a timely basis and the material that goes with it is costing us a lot of money. >> thank you. and thank you, mr. chairman. >> also we've been chewing up equipment for ten years. there's no reset which we're going to have to be facing. mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for being here today. secretary hagel, i was happy to join with nearly 50 of my colleagues, bipartisan, a unique situation, bipartisan concern,
and that is in regard to the department of defense creating a distinguished warfare medal, dwm, which we appreciate, to recognize extraordinary service of our personnel. but unfortunately, there's an issue of precedence, and that the dwm was placed above the bronze star and purple heart in order of precedence. have you made determination how to dress of -- address his and this is a concern to military families. >> thank you. it is a concern to me. it's a concern to any veteran or anybody in the military. but to just get straight to the answer of your question, you know i asked the chiefs and the secretaries to go back and take another look. i'll make a decision on this early next week, and i'll make that announcement on where i think we should go next on this. >> as a fellow veteran, i
appreciate you looking into that. it is important. additionally in regard to the military healthcare system, there's the proposal raising of the tri-fair fee and there has been in the last two years a surplus of $500 million to $709 million, and so there's been a surplus. additionally, it's been claimed that the healthcare costs are eating the budget alive, when in fact it's an increase of less than 1% in fy13 and fy14, and then there's actually been a decrease of $650 million in private sector costs, and my concern is that we know this is a great program, tri-care. people are very satisfied. military families appreciate this benefit. commitments have been made to our veterans and to military families. why would we be increasing the
fees when in fact the program is working well? >> thank you. the program is working well. and as i noted in my testimony, and mr. hale is obviously quite conversant on this, but we've seen those costs go down, and i mentioned is in my testimony. but as more people come on the system and more demand, and the sustainability, how to continue to commit and pay for those and fulfill those commitments, and we've analyzed this in some detail. we think it would be wise -- these are not significant increase by the way, but be wise to propose these increases in fees. now, recognizing this is the beginning of debate, the
beginning, as it should be, laid out and let's look at everything on it. but -- on this issue. but these are not significant increases. we're looking at the long-term sustainability. it is a good program. it has worked, and that's not an issue. but it's the issue of the affordability of the program. i don't know. let me ask you -- >> just briefly add, mr. wilson, billion dollars inspiration the tri-care fees. if we don't do it we'll have to take that out of readiness or modernize. >> it was strong feeling of the secretary and the joint chiefs the balance -- >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman? could he speak more in the microphone. >> save about a billion dollars from the tri-care fees and copays and if we don't da that we'll have to take it out of the readiness and it's a strong
feeling of the aspect the chiefs is the right thing to do is a balanced approach of modest increase in fees. >> the experience clear they're not increase of any significant amount, less than 1%, and mr. secretary, the fee increases have been -- i'm not sure what the new ones are -- were an increase of 365%, and so it was a significant to the persons who are in the program. and i hope we look at the experience because i know it was not projected that the healthcare costs would go down. that was a pleasant surprise. so i rather we look at the pleasant surprise and be positive, and i just hope that y'all look at the that. the fee increases impact military families. thank you, and i appreciate your time. >> thank you. ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. secretary. i look forward to working with you and general dempsey and secretary hill, thank you for
being with us. secretary hill i understand the department of defense is directed to services to restart tuition to service members as of april 9th of this year, and i certainly support the tuition assistance very, very much supported of indication for our troops, continuing education, and yet i understand that this is really going to put some pressure on our services to try and go along with this essentially because it means in many cases they've spent some of those dollars and they have to look for other areas in which to back-fill those dollars as well. and so i wonder if you can comment on that. number one, is that correct? and also i think it's a lesson for all of us because we certainly go on record supporting a change when it comes about, certainly when we look at the budgets, often
pentagon requests one thing, we come back and do something different. you understand that. certainly mr. secretary. how are we doing with that right now? and is this not a problem for the services? they have to find the dollars in order to fund not just an unlimited amount of tuition assistance going forward from the point. >> congresswoman, thank you. let me respond and then i'm going to ask the chairman for specific response because you noted in your question, some of the services are struggling with this more than others, and that's right. first, we're going to follow -- we are following the directive of nda and what the appropriations bill instructed us to do. you are correct that the prior to that, we had to make some tough choices. each of the services 0, where they were going to prioritize their funds. as i noted in my opening
comments, readiness, protecting the war fighter, our most important assignments. obviously when you're at war in a nation, those are priorities, and other priorities. so, we had to balance those priorities with those resources, and so the services were in a tough spot on this. each service has a little different standard on this. >> right. >> so, we're going to fulfill that commitment, but let me now ask the chairman because he'll talk now more directly -- >> i think it's important to know where those dollars are coming from for each service? >> thanks, congresswoman. goes back to what congressman wilson talked about. i find myself often in the difficult position of standing in front of soldiers and sailors and marines and air men and family and explaining when we absorb cuts of whatever magnitude we have to include all of the various factors of this
giant enterprise in order to keep the force in balance. so, some one individual 225,000 might be on me blog complaining about the fact we had to suspend tuition assistance or revise the program, but the answer is, unless we look across the board at all the levers we have to pull, whether it's infrastructure, healthcare, pay compensation, tuition assistance, we'll have an extraordinarily well compensated force that will be sitting at fort hood, texas, or camp lejeune, unable to train and therefore will be putting them at risk. i tell the young men and women, this is inconvenience to you what would really be dangerous to you is if we don't keep this thing in equilibrium. we have too look at everything. >> my concern is whether or not we're actually cutting into that, whether we're cutting into readiness by virtue of having an
unlimited stream of money in order to do this, something we all would support but nevertheless in this -- >> the answer is yes but not uniquely because of tuition assistance. frank russian tuition assistance what $200 million for the rest of this fiscal year, which may sound like an inconsequential amount of money in the context of a $525 billion budget. the problem is that's probably three or four brigade training exercises. >> mr. hale, did you want to comment? >> no. i think secretary and chairman said it right. we complied what if we thought was the intent of the law and the appropriations bill and it's cause something difficult decisions. >> all right. thank you. thank you all. >> thank you. mr. bishop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. after congressman fore's
question, it's good to see you on the correct site of capital hill. i have questions and i'll get them all through come hell or high water. so the first one deals with a request in your budget. appears that in the air force budget that roughly $1.4 million is put in there to conduct an environmental impact study regarding the icbm missile wing. i under w inverted in the budget proposal by your office but not air force leadership mitchell -- leadership. my question, is this your idea? and if it is -- close down an icbm going at the closed down, which one is being studied for potential closure. >> i asked the comptroller if it's a correct statement, and what that was about. i'm going to ask him to answer the question because it is
correct. >> okay. >> what he just remind me of is the missile wing and component of the larger context here. so let me ask, mr. hale -- >> don't remember who put it in. i'll find out for you. we're setting all three wings, environmental impact statement on all three of them. >> what is the purpose for that eif? >> part of all missions and all activities on the table. we need to understand what the environmental impacts would be of any decisions we make with regard to icbms. >> all icbm wings and squadron. >> correct. >> let in ask the question, the faa closed a number of contractor towers far in excess of the sequestration bail. a few of the towers are near air force bases. have one in ogden, hinkley air force, congressman phlegm, the same situation.
so the question is did faa contact the defense department in my way to coordinate what they were doing when they made this decision to close these towers down? and since it also -- go ahead and answer that one. >> it's a quick answer. i don't know. >> if you could find out. >> we'll find out good -- get back to you. >> just nat past, for example, when nasa decided to change their program and had a negative impact what it cost the military to do missile defense and there was no coordination between those two agencies. so i would like to know if there has been any contact. but since these areas now overlap as far as air space, you have to go over the ogden air force place. potential of collision, potential of pilot safety, potential of impact on mission readiness, training, testing activity do you consider those be a problem in these few situations, and if so, what are are you doing about it?
>> well, i understand exactly your point, and the reasons you mentioned, and as i said, i will find out and get better acquainted with it. it seems to me, based on what you said, it could be a potential problem. so, beyond that i just would have to find out enough information, starting with you question, did they contact us? what did we say? what are the vulnerabilities and i'll get back to you. >> so not a whole lot of towers and bases but a couple of which i know, may be a few others. that as well as the eif statement purpose, would appreciate that kind of return. and i'll give you back a minute. one of the few time is haven't used it all. >> i just mentioned -- >> i just used it all. >> thank you for your comments welcoming me on the right side of the capitol. i alty started a career after
vietnam on this side of the capitol in 1971 as chief of staff a congressman. >> why did you go over to the dark side? >> i'm still going to confession. thank you. >> thank you. >> you have tile. you could ask a question why weapon don't do an environmental impact on the result of somebody hitting us with a missile. >> thank you, mr. chairman, secretary hagel, and general dempsey and secretary hale, thank you for appearing and for your testimony. and secretary haling, congratulations on your confirmation. i look forward to working with you. i'd like to try to get in two questions. one on cyber and the other one on directed energy. let me start with secretary
hagel in your first -- wrapped up on april 13, 2013, you assert third cyberthreats our nation faces today is a security challenge with potential adversary seeking the able to strike at america's security, energy, and economic, and critical infrastructure. as you may know, this is an interest of mine, dealing with cyberspace. looking at the fy14 budget, are we resourcing adequately in order to operate wind the cyberdomain and ensure our national interests are protected, and does the department require additional authorities in order to educate, attract, and retain the very best cyberoperators? >> congressman, thank you. i appreciate your comments. cyberis one of the areas that we
have actually proposed increases in the budget. so i think that begins with some understanding, at least on our side, of the threats and responsibilities we have in this domain, and i think they are going to continue to multiply. i do know of your long-standing involvement in this area, and i look forward to working with you. we continue to enhance our role in this effort, dods. as you know we're not a the only agency with some responsibility here. the department of homeland security has a lot of authority, as you know, on this. we are working very closely on enter agency groups as we connect better and we need more of that connection on lines of authority, definitions of responsibility. as you know, our two primary
resources at nsa and cyber command, are both critical components of our security enterprise. we spend lot of time on this and we're going to continue to spend a lot of time. it's as overall as big a threat to this country, cyberattacks, as any one threat. >> thank you. let me also turn to the issue of directed energy and if we have time maybe i'll come back to cyber. first i want to congratulate the navy, just recently very successful test of a laser shipboard laser, shot down a drone. i see this directed energy as game-changing technology, both for standoff as well as for ship defense, operating with missile defense. bat year and a half ago the
senate for strategic budgetary assessment came out with a report that directed energy is maturing at a faster pace than what many had realized. can you tell me where the department stands right now on getting this stuff out of the labs and deploying this type of technology? >> yes. as you had noted, we have a high priority on this, and you have just recited a couple of examples. we have a platform ship that is involved in some of this testing right now. so, we'll continue to be very focused, very engaged, and we'll assure that prioritization of the resources we need continue to carry it out. >> let me also maybe expand on it a little bit, touching on a couple of operational aspects of antiaccess and area denial
environments. limitations likely to place a premium on access, and particularly in the asian region, where there's electronic warfare challenges. general dempsey, can you speak to how department is resourcing and investingvesting in resourcn order to immediate the challenges particularly undersea techniques and procedures? >> general. >> yes, sir. >> gentlemen's time has expired. i would ask you to table that for the record. mr. turner. >> secretary hagel, general dempsey, i appreciate this dialogue today. i want to thank you on your issue of sexual assault in the
military. general dempsey, we appreciate your voice as we have look to both try to change the culture of the military and look at the rules and regulations that need to be changed. thank you for your position on addressing article 60 after we had the incident of general franklin overturning a conviction of sexual assault. my co-chair of the sexual assault prevention caucus and myself recently received a presentation from the air force, and we appreciate their dedication on this issue. we look forward to working with you on the hawk for that -- on the language for that because there are a number of considerations. we have some additional issues we think should be addressed so my co-chair and i will be working to report to you on that was we proceed. on sequestration, i wanted to relate that the commander of
write patterson aforce base reminded us the effect on work force both men and women in uniform and civilian work force. in themy -- in my community, 13,000 people are facing furloughs. so i want you please pass on that members of congress are very concerned about the personal effects, people who have kids in college, vacations postponed, other expenses and real life hardships this is going to result in. i have questions for secretary hagel and questions for general dempsey. my first to secretary hagel is about our ability to maintain responding to two conflicts and my question to general dempsey will be about missile defense and looking to iran. secretary hagel, secretary
panetta, was at the to 2012 munich security conference and said: we'll ensure we can quickly confront and defeat address from any adversary, anytime knee. it's essential we have capability to deal with more than one adversary at a time and i believe we have shaped a force that has that capability. we have coming up in nato a joint training exercise in poland. that's very important to members of congress because we know how sensitive our relationship is with poland as the administration walked away from the missile defense, and this joint exercise take place. my concerns obviously our amount as we look sequestration and defense cuts to give our al throw it assurance we can do two conflicts with the tilt to the pacific, nato is obviously nervous, and i would like, mr. secretary, your comments on that, and then general dempsey,
general kaylor had a concern about ability to do look-shoot-look and we're well behind the ball in north korea and the missile defense we should have there. and the rise of iran, we have had language for an east coast site that would augment our missiles in alaska and give us the look-shoot. and the commander said that east coast site would give us increased battle space. your thought s on the look-shoot doctrine and opportunity. secretary hagel? >> thank you, congressman. on nato and those exercises. and our complete full support of our continued alliance and relationships. absolutely. we are committed and will stay committed to those exercises to our allies, to the entire
framework. the objective, the purpose of nato, don't know if you're aware, but last four years i've been chairman of the atlantic council, and i have given many speech on this specific issue all over the country, all over the world. the critical relationship that we have with nato. i don't believe -- certainly not a collective security arrange independent the world like it but it's bigger than just a security arrangement. it is the one anchor that secures interest based on human rights and based on the same values of the 28 members and that's a significant starting point. and it can't fix every problem. and it shouldn't be expected to. but to maintain and to build and strengthen that alliance is absolutely critical to our
interests and it will certainly be reflected and is reflected in current and forward relationships. on your comment about walking away from relationship with poland missile defense issue, let me comment on that. we talked to the pols and our nato allies about the decisions we made on the ground-based initiative. and i think you know, and we're continuing to stay committed, they know this, the president said this, to that relationship on the european phased adaptive approach. one through three, we're looking at four for a lot of reasons. there's some of that phase four that we think is too expensive and doesn't do the job. we're looking at that. the pols are in compliance with that, with us. they agree. we're not taking anything out of
there we're continuing to fulfill the commitments in poland with the pols as well as to nato. so i just want to give you my take on that, congressman. >> if you have anything further on that -- >> provide for the record your responses on the east coast site. since you have taken out phase four, the only portion which would protect -- >> gentlemen's time has expired,. >> that could be important. >> mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first off, i want to thank the secretary and the department for putting in the budget request and investment in ns whidbey aland for the hangar and hangar modernize asia as we're moving p8 a's there to replace the p-3s. the second point i want to make is that as you're looking at the budget near term and long term, something that tends to be a feast or famine proposition is
the investment in electronic warfare, and if history is a guide, we're haven'ted into famine on the electronic warfare, and i hope we can break that cycle in the near term and long term. but it's a few questions here for secretary. the president has made clear that securing and removing vulnerable is inle material is a top priority. i know representative sanchez asked a related question but the dod agreed to transfer dollars over to nsa over several years to support nuclear weapons programs, and these funds are not available to support nonproliferation programs and securing and removing vulnerable materials. who is that the case, one priority from the president and dod signing the mou with nsa to
do something the opposite? >> as i addressed part of that question, as you noted, our specific responsibility, do ds, with nuclear weapons, is deterrence. the nonproliferation piece, as you know, has always resided in other agencies, specifically state. now, we're part of that. we cooperate with that. start treaty issues and so on. we participate in hat -- that but we don't have responsibility for that. as we're looking at all these relationships and in particular the agency relationship you're talking about, it's not in the budget because that's not our budget line responsibility. >> i guess i would just note that we're looking at nonproliferation of nuclear
weapons, with not get into -- not revert to stove-piping how we approach this weapons, which thes a nuclear weapons program and invex in nonproliferation program and i just caution us not to revert to stove pipes like we used to have many years before i got here. >> thank you. the comptroller wanted to also add something. >> if he can be very quick. >> this is a national program. we don't have primary funding but be do provide some funding, about $500 million, some of that goes for nuclear ton proliferation in support of other agency efforts. >> question is on -- last year we head your predecessor, mr. panetta, here for the first time to testify jointly on dod and vad cooperation. have you made a commitment you're going to continue the
efforts mr. panetta put forward and continue the cooperation with the v.a., especially the electronic records and tracking these folks from the time they enter the service until the time they enter the v.a. and well beyond. >> we are committed to work with the v.a. i spoke to the secretary yesterday. we met a couple of times since i've been at dod. talked many times on the phone. had a number of meetings. we have the responsibility in dod. we produce the veterans, and we're not near where we should be, but, yes, absolutely we will stay committed, and we'll work as a partner and do everything we can to fill a seamless network. >> we need a seamless network and the department needs to be sure the folks working underneath you are stepping up to that commitment as well.
>> one of the first things i did when i got over there was to get into this. i was deputy administrator of the veterans administration in 1981 and 1982. had a little something to do with getting they're system on -- their system on track. >> i have one more question. >> go ahead. >> are you in favor of closing gitmo and do you have the authority to move any detainee? >> i support the president's position on gitmo. the reality is we have responsibility for gitmo now. 166 prisoners there now. that's where we are. so, as secretary of defense, i have to assure the security of that facility, and all of the responsibilities that go with
that detention facility, including the people we have down there. and so that's my responsibility. >> for the record we get back to -- answer to the second question, if you believe there's any authority for transfor for any reason, judicial, medical, or military. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we will hear now from mr. cline, we'll town you, and then at the end of your questioning we'd take a reassess. >> thank you gentlemen for being here. i have a question that is a little bit off of the budget, and so i don't want to be guilty of ambushing you with this about i want to talk for just a minute and then ask a question about the medical evaluation board backlog, and i don't know if this is something you're on top of. i'll be happy to take the answer for the record. but we have just got an awful
problem out there affecting our soldiers. the minnesota national guard now has 168 of these medical evaluation board cases pending. the national guard bureau surgeon's office reports 5,269 open cases. and the average adjudication time, the average adjudication time for minnesota cases is currently four and a half years from the date of injury, and that's about the national average. it is an awful situation, and for the reserve components of the guard, these soldiers have to travel to a base where there's an active duty medical doctor that can make the december. it is a blow to morale. it is incred credible we have allowed this system to deteriorate in this way. so my question is, what are you doing about and it what can we do to help if you need legislation? i'll be happy to take it for the
record but i don't want to let it slip win. i'm astonished it could have gotton to the point that soldierses are being literally jerked around and have to travel across at the country to be evaluated and then turn around and go back again and take years to get the question answered and this affects their able to be retained and it's an important part of the process. on another subject, because we're in an awful budget pinch, which we talked about and it we have seen the presidents's budgt and your comments. i won kerr if you or the joint chiefs have taken a serious look at the possibility of consolidating any part or all of the 16dod agencies or looked at the poupt possibility of combining combatant standard
these commands are important and created at a time when we had a lot of money and a lot of troops. bizarre position of not even having a headquarters in africa, and these headquarters take not only four-star generals but then appropriate number of lesser generals and sess and staff and then everybody has to have their own intelligence center, and just seems to me that now ills the time to look at that and i'd be inside the thoughts either of you have about that possibility. >> congressman, thank you. on your first question, that is unacceptable. intolerable. i was not aware of the specifics you mentioned. i will become aware of them. we will get back to you and give you a complete answer and what we're doing about it. so on the second question, i'm not aware of any serious consideration of consolidation of commands or any of those
structures. now, i'm going to ask general dempsey to respond. i would say that as we get deeper into this strategic priorities and management review, i don't know whether your specific questions would be addressed exactly the way you addressed them. merge something of the combatant commands, the nine we have now. certainly pete of those -- piece of those will be reviewed in this review. so now let me not use anymore of your time on this because the chairman will have a better answer. >> we're looking at the fourth estate, which is the defense support agencies, and we're also looking at the combatant commands and the component command that reside under them. we're alonging at the architecture in its entirety. >> thank you, we would appreciate you sharing how you're doing on that with the committees as we go forward.
i think now is the time to do it and so i appreciate the answer from both of you, and mr. chairman issue yield back. >> and mr. secretary, when you respond to the gentleman, cue also give that to the committee? i think all of us are having the same problem in our districts. >> i will. >> committee will now stand in recess. we'll reconvene at 12:15. >> come to order. >> ms. bordallo. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. i would like to welcome secretary hagel, general dempsey, and of course,
undersecretary hale. gentlemen, in the 11 years i have been in congress i always wanted guam to be better known about i didn't think it would be under these circumstances, and mr. secretary, i want to thank you for your leadership pro-active approach with respect to the current north korean threats, and your willingness to reposition a missile defense system on guam, is certainly very reassuring news to my constituents and to the military on guam. i also appreciate the department's continued commitment of significant funding for the re-alignment of marines from okinawa to guam. we made some positive progress this last year and i think the fy14 budget builds off the progress. i read in your statement the
fy2014 budget protects or increases key investments in missile defense at a cost of 9.2 billion. one packet of this missile defense is to protect against ballistic missile threats and the department is procuring additional interceptorsors and patriot missiles. the eis or the guam ealignment calls for the permanent fad and patriot missile defense on guam. given the unpredictability of the various actors in our region can we expect the fad to remain deployed on guam permanently? >> congresswoman, thank you. i appreciate your comments. i'll make a brief comment in response and then ask general dempsey to be more specific. you ended your statement with
as to your specific question -- >> it, it could. authorities say were fully fund it, frankly we are having terrible cash problems right now because the reduction in workload and edges to pay for them. we have not made a final decision that could include some of the workers. >> , he says? they literally have carrier for working to the end of next year. >> as i said, the funds have to break even on a cash basis by the public at google is your way to cash crisis because the work was being drawn down in many of them. we have not made a final decision either way. >> if in fact it does happen, i
would love to have as much my detailed conversation with you. >> @may get to your point, your request, yes we will. if we have to do that and make any of these countries is on furloughs, which as you know we've been talking about hope fully with about half sure is in a massive. remove from 21 to 14 and maybe we can get better, maybe we can. but we would let the congress now of our actions. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary, your secretary said he believed the treaty route with confirmation was the only appropriate way to undertake productions with another state. do you concur that observation that position? >> generate that has been the rid that we've taken.
it's been soviet union and russia. for the present treatise airport, i've always supported supported -- >> outside the parameters of the treaty as you now in this criticized them for getting around the senate and would not be verifiable. i hear few still feel as he did when you're a senator that the senate should have to ratify new year's reduction agreements. >> all those treaties are import. abreu, that process if for no other reasons than what you just noted to the american people, the congress that represents the american people into that process. there may well be as weak and too complicated pieces down the
road very opposed to can we do something better this week than a treaty. i don't know. you look at how the options. you look at the ways to accomplish the purpose, but overall i have not changed my opinion as i sit here from where i was in the senate. >> do believe such a degree that will be outside if confirmed by the senate? >> that's obviously a policy decision. the military guys are the reduction be done as part of the negotiation and not unilaterally. >> thank you both. i yield that, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a airman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a thank you are the witnesses for your testimony and endurance this morning. i want to ask secretary hagel a question. number one, secretary had not a -- panetta did make it a
priority, that have been pushing for and i hope again you will continue that effort as for dealing with budget issues and it's fair and auditability will help that cause. second way on export controls, to try and simplify the system of export controls for defense manufacturing industrial base who are under a lot of pressure. things like dolphin helicopter parts of engine parts restricted because it outdated regulations needs to be changed. a good progress recently and i hope under your leadership that effort will continue. the last point is the budget document tries to have 2021. the timeframe of the budget control act that the 2005 budget
rack will not generate net savings for 13 years? no prior brac has been able to do that in less than six years. that's just a case. there may be reasons, but doing it in the context of the budget control act for a lot of us does not work. you made your visit to afghanistan and i complement geo on the delicate response and you were asked about the situation there and described as complicated. some in his district with us a marine cat to his funeral was a few weeks ago that the dim of so-called friendly fire. 2014 we get it is dna. are you going to be coming with us with their own thoughts knowledge of that i'm opportunity to digest the situation over there between now
and then, is there going to be more feedback in terms of what your thoughts are on this conflict, what should be our number one priority in this committee and 66,000 troops in harms way. >> thank you for your first two comments and we will continue to work together on those. i'm your question regarding afghanistan. first, you're exactly right it is their first priority. we have 66,000 americans they are and we been there 12 years and there's no higher priority and will continue to do everything to support that mission and make that the highest priority. as to your larger universe of
god -- my thoughts regarding drawdown times and so on, when i was in the senate they went to afghanistan many times. as a matter of fact, was in the first congressional delegation that landed there. it was 1:00 in the morning under a tent in january 2012 -- i'm sorry, 2002. doesn't mean i'm an expert, but .. many times since. i support the current price is drawdown time, how we're doing responsibly. it's critically important we doing this responsibly. maybe the first question i get system or news about afghanistan from the chairman about the bilateral security agreement. that is the centerpiece of how we continue to unwind and translation. i think that's a correct course.
a lot of things have to happen to be in place. we have to be mindful of all the dynamics, pakistan and so on. i will always be available in any basis for any question, whether you want to call me and have a one-to-one privately and this committee. just suffice it to say where on the right course and doing it the right way. it's not dead yet. how much more drive back down but a lot of expenses remain. you know that. everyday i get a report to start the morning on afghanistan. general dunford within two days ago. we spent two hours with him. as you know, the chairman of the stand last week, said there is no higher priority and focus of
dod to getting this right can make getting people safely and doing what we've got to do. you mentioned the green on blue attacks, those kinds of things coming huge problems. we have to continue to deal with those. isaf partners in their pennebaker question which came today is the kind of residual for sydney beat behind common to find, train, assist and advise would be our role. i think that is correct. still a lot of pieces out there. i'm available to you or anyone else to give you my thoughts. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. thank you for being here. mr. secretary, thank you for your presence here today, sir. during the march 15 press conference on missile defense, duck your jim miller stated that
that time the crop is uncertain, right. we didn't know we would see today what we are now, close quote. another is, it sounds like we're waiting on north koreans to succeed in developing missiles and i just have to ask the hard question. is this the posterior of the obama administration in dealing with the iranian icbm program. do we need to wait for success by the radiance before we deploy an additional capability? every point to anticipate the evolving threats and be able to meet them before they are deployed. >> congressmen come a thank you. let me begin with this. you know what this administration policies on iran. the president has been very clear, preventing iran from
developing a nuclear weapon. >> out to the right answer are as clear as the president would like for them to be. >> is a lot of things who would like the array needs to be clear on. i think the president has been clear on this. our allies have been clear on this. we have listed how many channels working on this diplomatic p5 plus one, which met recently. most significantly against a country, certainly in our lifetime. u.n. supported. we are working on the dynamics on this. our force structure in the arabian sea, capabilities, military options contingencies. so no, we can't control internally what decisions are made, what they do. we tried to have been fled over
the decisions, whether that will have an effect, i don't know. i think the president's position is right and has been right and will continue to go forward on that he says. >> mr. secretary, my concern is that she got commitment to sanctions and those things, but to rely upon them without the backup of a clarity the ukrainians would understand. we sanction north korea practically into starvation for nearly 50 years we find ourselves in the place we are today. i am hoping -- my hope was we could catalyze could didn't to be ready for whatever they decide to do and that's a main concern. general dempsey, maybe ask you a question now.
we see senior lawmakers of that calling for south korea to consider developing its own nuclear weapons deterrence. a recent poll shows the public support such a move. similarly we've seen calls to redeploy u.s. nuclear tactical weapons to south korea as the united states had deterrence commitments. i would like to ask you, what actions to think we should be taken to strengthen the or assurances? d.phil. redeploying tactical weapons to south korea to strength and assurances best way? or would it be preferable for south korea to do as they like to do to develop their own nuclear weapons capability. >> we've been very clear about her extended deterrence and assurance is not the actions in the last week or so but b-52s and b-2 is very clear
demonstration. secondly, we've been working on revising their national missile guideline to give them a ballistic missile capability to be able to range further than they had been able to range previously. we are in about the right place at its military to military the public proclamation notwithstanding. >> are you able to address the nuclear weapons and south korea? >> we do not advocate the return of weapons to the. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. loeb said. >> thank you for your service. on the readiness front if i may, i do appreciate everything our industrial organic base provides. we all understand how important that is, obviously when it comes
to ammunition plants, as veteran and going forward in the event we have another contingency, we have to be ready and that industrial organic days is going to be very, very important as is shown to be the case of these last two conflicts. hyping to preserve our readiness to die to make sure the industrial base stays warm during peacetime as well and we can all agree on that. mr. secretary, you've indicated the civilian workforce would be based on analysis designed to preserve the essential skills and capabilities. can you specify how that analysis would preserve those capabilities found within that industrial base and maintained that highly skilled work force.
can you elaborate on that a little bit? >> congress and, thank you. first, i agree. i think the entire leadership deals with their emphasis on how critical it is to preserve the industrial base. there is no issue there. how do we do it in light of the kind of budget realities were facing? that is all part of the prioritization balance beam as the general noted two or three times this morning. how do you balance all this and keep that readiness but also preserving the chairman's comments in the statement, preserve the ability for the longer-term, for the future. you're going to have a huge problem. one of the things i noted in the sheets have said we are consuming our readiness.
the cost of the longer-term as we allow that a site that happens be wrote. so we're going to do everything we can to preserve that days because it is critical to our future capability. >> we know for the conflict on the road that is going to be more costly than they had skated back up and running again, so we need to keep that in mind if you make these decisions and i appreciate that. another question about the reserve components, i appreciate your response earlier, but if they could turn to general dempsey and drill down a little bit or deeply if we could and we all understand how the card has been in these two conflicts, the title x missions they've been on. we understand how dare for domestic response to tornadoes, or quakes, all the rest. if you cut it, just talk a little bit more about the coming
years and how you see at duty versus reserve components that balance how we maintain that and in particular to keep his reserve folks. the event because i assume are going to look down as an operational force. how does that play out within forward? >> hopefully it will be at his versus reserve component. we've read that book and some of us have that t-shirt. >> we have respected their national guard. >> i absolutely have it in mind. i do believe in the total force. we determine in the act of component. the one secondly for some. time, we might read this elsewhere. the chiefs and general chaos of the national guard bureau have
favors are representative on the joint staff and as we go forward, we'll figure out the right balance of capabilities. make the mistake about it, if we put a full sequestration, all of the components will be affected, but the commitment will go after this answer is a total force. >> thank you. i do want to associate myself with congressman wilson and his concerns about the benefit. that's something i know we have to make tough decisions and they're going to be trade-offs. will have limited budgets, there's no doubt. at the same time these are folks who volunteer to me have to make sure we treat them with dignity and was it the desert. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you all for being here today. my question still specifically with me add. during her confirmation process, you assured your senate
colleagues that he would uphold the prohibition on funding. what has changed that and why do you move forward with that? >> what has changed is the appropriations bill passed a few weeks ago that the many back in the budget to fulfill that last year commitment. according to our office of general counsel, i asked for legal advice on this. they've told me were obligated to finish the contract as a result of the appropriations directive at the money. >> i respectfully think you need to get some new lawyers because i believe it's pretty clear is that the final and 12 and the language reviews as a prohibition. in addition to that, it is foolish for us to be spending almost $400 million on a system
that nobody's going to procure, nobody's going to buy and in the time we face today with north korea and rattling missiles, we have to focus on missile defense and i see the president's budget cut $500 million in self-defense. this team is foolish to be spending $400 million on this system that is never going to be deployed. >> i'm not here to defend, but it would respond this way aside from what i've heard he said about our legal counsel at facing me we're obligated to make data payment. >> they say are obligated weblog? the committee in the senate arms committee write the laws. appropriators cut checks. >> thank you, but that was the advice i got from cows.
through an intuitive sound detail and that was the decision i made. they're a couple other facets to that to respond to you and i'm not here to defend that system. that was all in place long before i got here. if we didn't fulfill that commitment, there would be litigation cost and penalty costs, which might have actually gotten more than what we are going to do to fulfill our obligations to our part is, italy and germany on that. there are some things that came out as i've asked a lot of questions because i've gotten hit and we'll get hit with questions on it and should be. what did we learn from this? and it is applicable for us to go forward. i am told by armies of people there a lot of things we can use. that satisfies with your question. >> the fact there's a 2005
memorandum of understanding that clearly is a the responsibilities of the subject to fines of such purposes and prohibits that your lawyers are wrong again and as far as of ventures, d. msc is something they want and we are integrating into the patriot system and the radar is a work order because a friend in the german and italian. again, the american tax payers are paying for something that's never going to be deployed only harvested the technology we wanted on the system. we are going down a path here and we've got north korea. who knows what that crazy guys going to do, but the president's budget cuts it by $550 million. this is a response to pull and
use the secretary need to go back, talk to your lawyers because there's public grounds here to see the department of defense now looking into litigation into responsibility to the american people first and foremost and get another crew of attorneys to understand the law. >> i will ask the question again, thank you. >> i yield back my time. >> mr. tsongas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to return to the issue raised by mr. turner. i like mr. turner commend you secretary hagel for recognizing the need to article lx of the code of justice, especially so soon after coming into this position before your proposal to change finding factory court-martial. we were all shocked by the
decision of the military authority general who had this to sort out a jury verdict and i appreciate your commitment to solving this problem. i would also like to thank you, general dempsey for all or i first prevent assaults the military. i know we all appreciate your visit to the held last year to announce changes and i admire the willingness to express in your written testimony to explore new options and new ideas to confront the scores. to give you a sense, we know the numbers. but to give you a sense of the enormity of the issue, plaster was a gathering of women and men have been assaulted while serving in the military here in washington under the will of the service organization that has really worked on this issue and that what into a ballroom full
of people assaulted while serving in the military. they made the issue very real. many members of this committee have been working for years. as to the inherent in many years and we've had the support of our chairmen and ranking members met. as a result we've had a lot of tools in the toolbox to give you more tools to find the common is an independent review panel to review and assess assistant duties to prosecute and adjudicate crimes involving assault and the related judicial proceedings. i know you've mentioned that in your written testimony, but how would you go about the process of appointing people to this panel so we have a group that is smuggling to be pulled and thoughtfully examined of
military culture in the uniform code of military just as so we can get a better handle on stopping these cards. >> thank you. i'm well aware i'm well aware of which you continue to do in the thank you on the third to continuing to work with you. we have a lot more to do as we know. i'm a sexual assault panel question, i am currently reviewing a list of names brought forward from my office. i list general counsel to reflect individuals who understand the issue, are aware
of this issue and have sent them to contribute if they are part of this panel. i'm currently reviewing those names for come for the congress if you recall. how make a decision on this panel member shortly >> those who can take a clear eyed look at the services than what they are doing and not simply does -- it's a remarkable institutions. these crimes and they seek to do in protecting our country. it is a way that makes a
difference in the long run. and people are scandalized on what they are learning and it just doesn't serve you well and bring forward. >> i will tell you that grupo beta verse and that is the whole point of a panel like this and that's why i'm taking time personally going through it. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you. >> mr. conaway. >> thank you. mr. hagel would be disappointed if i didn't talk to but the audit department of defense. your predecessor did a great job of creating the forward momentum to get this job done. the risk of courses change in leadership and that was sequestering all the other challenges that they are come in this issue be one of those
tickets put to the back burner. i appreciate the letter he sent me the other day. he's given us having this done. >> of justice committed by secretary panetta. i'm not near as smart as secretary panetta on these things. he had a long history in these institutions. actuarial us that makes sense. yes, i will pick up where he left off. the comptroller and i have had many discussions and the institutions and everybody is committed to get this done. everyone is exactly where secretary panetta was and where we will continue to be. >> i appreciate that.
as you try to allocate resources across an awful lot of issues, but this is when i appreciate your personal support and publicly acknowledge any keys following up on an assigned group word. it's been reported last month that it s-sierra used chemical weapons. the president has stated over and over is one of the red lines if that's the case. if a red line is crossed and we have to enact the plan and i missed him assuming general dempsey and his team have put in place to do what it is we need to do, the question comes to how do we pay for that? the chairman has sent the white house letter recently asking not if we do something like that in the sense of budgetary issues, that to be a supplemental or
separate appropriation to do that, rather than ask you to take it out. >> thank you. let's start with the question of how you do it and what we have to do what we would do. and supplemental would be required and i will do specifics to the chairman. second, yes, we are preparing, continue to prepare contingency plans, options for the president. and to chemical weapons as you know the u.n. has impaneled a body to go and come in but that's not moving forward very
quickly. go in and investigate, take a look. what we have said publicly and what we believe in the united states is we have not detected years of chemical weapons. we stay very close to that. obviously, if that line is crossed, then we've got a different situation and you get into the next that have dimensions to this if chemical weapons on their own hands. it's a very unstable, unclear situation in syria. it not as bad elements in play there. so this is a serious and complicated problem that we all have. the borders, refugees, said this has to be handled pretty carefully. i think the way we are proceeding here is responsibly and the bottom line is we may have two takes time different
action if that's required. i.t. is a pure time. >> i will reaffirm what the secretary said. >> thank you, chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. this is basically the 2014 department of defense requests for the budget. my problem is seen as you mentioned budget on the premises we have and that, i am stuck and that may explain why. first of all, the assumption is sequester will be repealed and that's what your budget is based on. that is one thing. we assume the sequester would be repealed before we went into this continuing resolution cycle and it didn't and we note the consequences of that has been. the second part is the budget
control act of 20 levin has a second component, the caps on spending that brings us to the discussion we've had any times in this committee, which is what is the 487 billion we've been promised, what does that represent? mr. secretary, it in your speech before the national defense university, you called it a reduction. he said it reduced the department plans spending by 487 billion. that sounds to me like the caps of the budget control act. are we going to hold down their spending? and also as part of this proposal, is $150 billion worth of savings. my problem as i need to understand how all of these interact with each other because the fundamental assumption is you must get rid of sequestration. we will have colleagues who want
to know how we're going to pay for the 1.2 trillion in terms of defense. i understand the first two years of that was basically a 50% burdened by the defense. the president comes up with a proposal of 1.8 trillion of bush defense will comprise 150 billion. in order for us to get out there, we focus on a whole series of assumptions. if you can start by first telling me what is the 487 diane? do in time for that to be applied to the caps or for that to be part of sequestration satisfaction? where does that go? after that, why if we are doing all of this do we still need to talk about the b. word, which no one likes, which of course he brac. mr. secretary. >> that's probably three or four hours. let me try it this way because
you asked all the right questions and so on. for mr. with your first question assumption that sequestration would not occur. that is the whole point again of why i directed a strategic choice in management review because as you know, you noted in budget control act 20 levin is the. we're looking at that possibility as the months tick off with a real possibility that some are going to have to live with. so that is part of the rio view. , wife that is the case the resolutions are the same numbers as defense.
and is consistent with the resolution would put the house and senate pass. as the chairman and has a long time tents about the budget. you can put a budget of a $600 billion in a month or two. you've got all the pieces that deeply into everything. that is a component that gets overlooked. so we are looking at everything. as a matter of fact, one of the points i make in the review and in the speech i gave is we need to challenge every past consumption. i use that terminology for the obvious reason. the 487 and referred to, what i was referring to is what dod and
that's what i was referring to. if that's not further complicated it, thank you. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and for your contributions. secretary hagel, on march 15th when you announce to be able to have additional interceptors company was standing next to the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and he said and i'm quoting the transcript, we believe the north korean missile probably does have the range to reach the united states. would you agree with that statement? >> and i'm not sure if you're
referring to hawaii, which is part of the united states as we know. as i said, there are things we don't know. and also chairman. >> the launch of the satellite and it's that third stage that was kind of the breakthrough for the north koreans and now we have the third stage technology she, apparently under pinchot could very well migrate. >> okay, thank you. >> at that to ask you my next question. the defense intelligence agency did a study that was finished
last month. now while the contents of this study are classified, the conclusions and certain statements are not classified and quoting from the pacified portion, which has not been made public, they say dia assesses with confidence the north currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles however the reliability will be low. general, would you agree with that assessment? >> congressman, with the number of caveats to put on the front end, i can't touch that one because i am not sure now it hasn't been released. some of its classified, some unclassified. >> let me repeat. maybe i cut you off guard here. because you that so many questions and i understand this is a lengthy process. but they concluded and
mrs. public. it assesses with moderate confidence that the north currently has nuclear weapons by ballistic missiles and bailout though they would be low. >> i choose not to comment on it. >> let me ask my third question. >> if we didn't have sequestration then many of us to operate with, which you prefer -- which are required, which you require that we do have two carriers present in the arabian gulf? as you know, we are down to one because of funding issues.
i would advise the president on that specific issue as i do when others based on the advice i get from the chairman and the combatant commander in that area, the centcom commander as to what they think we need in order to further strategic interest and capabilities of readiness to be prepared for a contingent fees. >> do you believe having only one aircraft carrier that is to this evidence that during our ability to act as a deterrent and not part of the world. >> no, i don't think it limits and conversations i've had with the chairman and vice chairman and others. >> lastly in the short time i have, it has been told to me it natively by anonymous sources within parts of the dod that
some of the civilian furloughs were not required in their initial plans for funding, but they were told to revise those plans and to come up as. is there any truth to that kind of statement? >> congressman, i don't know. i've not heard that, bulimia is the comptroller. thank you. >> i'm not aware of that specific directions. we are trying to look at a policy that minimizes adverse effects. that is the key goal. within that into the accident doesn't violate, but they could see consistency and fairness because we had to jump into this pool in the day to jump together. no final decisions have been made on furloughs. >> the gentleman's time is expired. ms. duckworth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i'm pleased to hear of your commitment to maintaining the reserve forces
is an operational first hit i spent the first half of a military caress a strategic observe in the second half is operational force. i applaud your commitment to that. my question has to do with the acquisition process dod undergoes. i also sit on the oversight and government reform committee and over the last three months have been in congress, i've heard a lot of testimony about issues with dod acquisition processes with ef 35 process and the concurrent acquisition process has been called by a former undersecretary of defense acquisition turned malpractice. moving on to his next generation aircraft sunday, i see also in the manufacturing phase and it
places that entire project by leasing a contract year. and we are boosting the combat ship procurement to about $3.2 billion, even though naval command or is have said that it is not a sufficiently -- does not have sufficient capability. can you talk about that is sequestration and budget constraints? which you are going to be that cannot in terms of the defense acquisition process to see if there's not some cost savings there. >> thank you, congresswoman. i appreciate your comments. yes, there are things that need to be found and will be found. stepping back just for a moment and don't get to some of the specific objects. i see now, starting with the
current deputy secretary of defense, ash carter, when he was the under secretary for acquisition, he worked very hard to put in place a whole mail accountable acquisition system. dollars here are immense. though the the times come you know the complications. but many factors are starting to plan at the same time, auditable financial statements. and holy contract are smart, bold, taken a more realistic look at the acquisitions that we started with, based on what? you mentioned it at 35 is a good example. we were ready to start that
program. we actually have it on track. i just met with the project director of the past 35 yesterday for an hour and a half days where we are. those costs are coming down. there's some good news here. the gao report that just recently came out, which you've probably seen with your other committee assignment was pretty complimentary to our acquisition systems. imperfect, need more to do, will do more. it is a big area as i sat in my opening statement. acquisitions, procurement, research development together is a third of our budget. it is a huge sum of money. the complications of the time and what do we need and do we really need this and all those questions. let me stop there and see if our comptroller has anything he
wants to add to this. thank you. >> just briefly, we have free faces significantly over the last five years to reduce and concurrency. we've had some discussion. some concurrency is right as to how much, but we don't want to straighten them out over a long period. ground combat vehicle, tough call, but the one we believe we achieved were worth it because they allowed us to reinvest substantial funds and existing ground combat vehicles and much of that money back in him we thought that a quick payoff. i understand the trade-off that you're saying and we are committed and is an important part of the navy and will be for many years. >> are you going to continue the acquisition process for future weapons systems such as the six
generation fighter aircraft? >> there'll be some concurrency and in a major project come up with like to listen to look at that carefully and minimize that, recognizing if you don't do the testing first, you have to back the planes and it's very expensive. >> thank you. i'm out of time, mr. chairman. >> thank you good mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary trent three, dempsey, great to be there for the commissioning of the arlington this past weekend. i want to begin with you and focus on your comments about brac. going back we won't enjoy saving until 2018. $35 billion. and you're opening scene he talked about $2.8 billion in the cost of the proposed brac.
i want to get your perspective on whether you believe in this time of insert t., especially facing the sequester, facing our draw down an industry, where we need to be a summation and maria from budget constraint, is this the right team to decide 10 on the recent history of the time to accrue savings in the face of budget constraints. is this the right term to pursue brac? >> congressman, thank you. is there a question on that question was not only asked, but discussed for hours. i'm going to give you the answer to it. i wasn't part of that decision, but i support it when i was in the senate. but i give you my overall take and i'll ask mr. hale to address specifically the savings and how much is the squeeze for the part
of your question i think. first on the rationale of brac and as you say at this time. i think it is important that we look at everything. if in fact we draw down our force structure, 100,000 in making strategic decisions made with the congress involvement on this. i know there're disagreements on on specific since no one. but that is where we are going for obvious reasons. it seems to me illegitimately logically we are going to have to look at overhead. why do you need to base this? can you consolidate some of those bases? what are the strategic priorities? how do you implement those priorities? i don't like, did any other way without some sort of a review top to bottom. i understand as i said my
opening comments is very imperfect. he was sitting here know that. i know it. still, it's an important time to do it. it's worthwhile to do with there are saving you get out of it. if no other reason it's important to get some sense of editors admit that inventory is. we have the last 12 years had layered commandline commands on commands and weapon systems because we essentially have had over a ten-year period pretty much a noninteractive flood of money going to dod for the reasons everybody understands an accepted and supported. there's a different time. we have to do things differently and still protect the interest of our country. they take the rest of our time if it's okay to ask mr. hale to respond to specific numbers.
>> financier question on brac 2035. we spent an enormous sum of honey. we would save $4 billion a year permissible in place and is close to the point now. we won't break even because that huge sum until 2018. we don't intend brac 2013 -- it was in response to 9/11 emerges not going to do it again. summer classic realignment and closer round can usually takes four figures to breakeven. we would expect one to $2 billion of savings that make it there. if we don't start now and get going, some successors secretary of defense, some successors going to need that money and they won't be there. we are saving $12 billion a year from past brac